BLD-235 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-4399
___________
DANIEL TILLI,
Appellant
v.
WILLIAM FORD, individually; ANDREA E.
NAUGLE, individually; COUNTY OF LEHIGH
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 5-13-cv-04435)
District Judge: Honorable Robert F. Kelly
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
April 24, 2014
Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 6, 2014)
_________________
OPINION
_________________
PER CURIAM
Daniel Tilli appeals pro se from the District Court’s order dismissing his
complaint. We will dismiss this appeal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Tilli filed a prior federal suit against a nursing home and various other defendants.
The District Court dismissed that complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and we
affirmed. See Tilli v. Manorcare Health Servs., 419 F. App’x 152, 154 (3d Cir. 2011).
Tilli later pursued his claims in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas for Lehigh
County, and the federal suit at issue here arises from that litigation. In his federal
complaint, Tilli named as defendants Lehigh County, the Honorable William E. Ford, and
Andrea E. Naugle, Lehigh County’s Clerk of Judicial Records. Tilli alleges that Judge
Ford retaliated against him for requesting recusal by dismissing his complaint and that
Naugle and Judge Ford conspired to deprive him of a default judgment. Tilli requested
monetary damages or, in the alternative, that the District Court “grant the default
judgment” in his state-court case.
On defendants’ motions to dismiss, the District Court dismissed Tilli’s complaint.
The District Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine to the extent that Tilli asked it to “grant” a default judgment in the state-court
action, but not otherwise. See Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP,
615 F.3d 159, 166 (3d Cir. 2010). The District Court also determined that Tilli failed to
state valid claims for retaliation and conspiracy against Judge Ford and Naugle because
those claims are barred by judicial and quasi-judicial immunity, see Capogrosso v. Sup.
Ct. of N.J., 588 F.3d 180, 184-85 (3d Cir. 2009), and that Tilli’s conclusory complaint
fails to state a plausible claim in any event. The District Court further concluded that
Tilli failed to state a claim against Lehigh County because it is not the “employer” of the
elected individual defendants and, even if it were, there is no respondeat superior liability
2
in civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. See Mulholland v. Gov’t Cnty.
of Berks, Pa., 706 F.3d 227, 237 (3d Cir. 2013); Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195,
1207 (3d Cir. 1988). Finally, the District Court concluded that dismissal with prejudice
was appropriate because the deficiencies on which it relied cannot be cured by
amendment. See Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch. Dist., 706 F.3d 209, 217 (3d Cir. 2013).
Tilli appeals pro se and, having granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
we must determine whether this appeal is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
An appeal is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). There is no arguable basis to challenge the
District Court’s rulings in this case for the reasons that it thoroughly and adequately
explained. Tilli argues, as he did in the prior appeal referenced above, that the District
Court displayed bias by mentioning his extensive history of frequently frivolous pro se
litigation, including his history of suing judges who have ruled against him in the past.
Once again, however, we see no basis for Tilli’s claim of bias and no other arguable basis
to challenge the District Court’s dismissal of his complaint. Accordingly, we will
dismiss this appeal as frivolous pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
3